Interaction

[Icethornstar]

Interaction is an essential part of the human- it is a given that every human needs some kind of interaction, be it with others, objects or oneself. Interaction, in my opinion, makes up the essence of the human life, shaping a person’s character and morale. Different experiences make different people, yes?- Assuming that coming into contact with anything is interaction ((feel free to express your thoughts on this as well- what would you define interaction as?)).

On this subject, I am curious to see if the audience would regard different types of interaction on different levels, per say, or on a basis of greater need- for example, the interaction with bodily needs trumping interaction with other people. A hermit can live without social interaction, but needs the essential needs of life to actually stay alive; can the same be said for one who must live on friends alone? It is through this, I would see that the need for the interaction of food is greater, and therefore possibly held in a higher respect, than that of social interaction.

Just a few questions to think about:

• What would you describe as the more prominent interactions in human life?
  ((Take note, this is different from defining it, as this encourages a list of sorts))
• What interaction would be the most important than anything else, to you as a person?
• Do you believe in "levels" of interaction, that some are more important than others?
• Do you believe that interaction makes up the human experience?
• Do you believe that interaction is necessary for humans?

Spoiler

Personally, I believe that interaction is a necessity that cannot be ignored. It is a given that is placed before a person as soon as they enter the world- a baby must interact with its mother to live; it must interact with others to learn how to speak, walk, or perform tasks. A person must eat, therefore coming into contact with a once-live organism, so I render it interaction even if the item is inanimate. Without interaction, humans would just be empty shells, in my opinion. Without another being to put as reference, the human mind would be at a blank- for, it parrots the actions of others to form our ability and character.

I see interaction as reliance on an object, after coming into contact with it. Simply walking past a person does nothing; however, waving and greeting them is placing a choice on them to reply or ignore you. Thus, you “rely” on the person to greet you back, even if you are ignored. Interaction works with animate and inanimate objects, as well- by using a calculator, we rely on its function to give us the answer to our equation.

The interaction of the bodily need, social need, and spiritual need/need of the mind are what I would deem the most important, and perhaps the only three main categories with many subcategories. Bodily need is what the person must interact with to maintain optimal health, social need is where a person interacts with another in hopes of learning something, and spiritual need is interactions that coterie ute to one's reasoning, thoughts and state of mind (not to mention, religion). These three; the body, mind, and spirit- are more commonly used when referring to the balance of one's health, I believe (feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this point)- therefore, the interactions with these categories are necessary components in a human's life.

However, though these three types of interaction should be theoretically balanced, I believe them to be on different levels. I put the bodily needs at the top, followed by spiritual needs and then social needs. One must have the ability to live before forming coherent thought, and must retain thought to be able to interact on a more worldly scale, according to my process of thought. Living a simple existence, though extremely dull, would appeal to me more than others, I would guess, than supposedly "dying" without the outside connections- death of the mind and soul.

Thoughts, anyone?
Remeber the rules, please, and the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[tirial]

Just a quick thought, but what you are talking about sounds a bit like Maslow's hierachy of needs, focusing on the interaction rather than the underlying need that drives it. If it's an area you are interested in you may want to have a look at his research as he defined an entire catalogue and priority levels of "interaction."

For me, different priorities take precedence at different times - someone may sacrifice security and social interaction for a remote posting with neither if it gives them a future benefit or self-actualisation. I certainly have.

[Niverdia]

Personally, I don't see that a person needs a large social group to exist or even be happy. We are led to believe that we must have others around us to make us happy, or complete us, but I really wonder why that must be. Must we really need others to define ourselves? Can we not do that on our own? Would it not actually be easier to find oneself if others were not there making them feel like they have to be a certain way?

As someone who has been trying to be mentally self-sufficient/independent out of various reasons for the past few years (one of them being social isolation due to a huge study load/personal time deprivation when I was on exchange studies in Bremen, Germany - I think that's where it started) I can't say that most of us can do well completely on our own. It's not a question of weakness or conformism, but we as individuals need something remotely similar to reflect on, to gain comfort from, to comfort other etc.. For me, going for a long time without feedback or meaningful interactions (for example, conversations that go beyond exchanging the latest happenings in life) makes everything I do seem bleak and useless, it makes me feel as if I am drifting aimlessly with no direction whatsoever.

I agree that a large group of peers is not necessary, a handful will do, it's just that most of us are not able to go on with a healthy mental existence alone without starting to slip at some point or another, at least not in youth until our personalities have fully formed - at least I have never heard of young hermits. :p. Being currently 23, I also consider myself not fully matured yet.

I might comment a bit more and with more coherence later, since this is a bit of a sensitive topic for me right now.

[ryer]

I agree with birdoflight, for years I tried to convince myself that I could do fine without other people. But isolation simply did not work for me. I do not want constant attention or interaction - in fact, I'm kind of a loner - but I think the occasional human interaction makes life more interesting / unpredictable - comparably to playing a game single-player mode vs on multiplayer. I think that humans are innately social creatures whether we want to be or not. So yes, I believe interaction is necessary and human.

Imho, the most important, and arguably the only interaction we need, would be open and personal sharing with other humans. Telling someone what made us happy or sad, even if they do not say anything back, knowing they listened and got what we said, makes us feel that we exist and matter somehow. (Reminds me of this quote: "We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.")

So to answer the original question, human interaction is the most important. (imho.) I personally would rather starve with someone rather than eat well and be isolated and lonely.